You're right, which is why it makes no sense to assume that back when these events took place the ones making the claims couldn't produce the evidence. If the Apostles were unable to back their outrageous claims, the movement would have died out:

"Peter and the other apostles answered....You killed Jesus by hanging him on a cross. But God, the God of our ancestors, raised Jesus up from the dead....We saw all these things happen....When the leaders heard this, they became angry and wanted to kill them. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel stood up in the meeting....He ordered the apostles to leave the meeting for a little while. Then he said, "People of Israel, be careful what you are planning to do to these men. Remember when Theudas appeared? He said he was a great man, and about four hundred men joined him. But he was killed, and all his followers were scattered; they were able to do nothing. Later, a man named Judas came from Galilee at the time of the registration. He also led a group of followers and was killed, and all his followers were scattered. And so now I tell you: Stay away from these men, and leave them alone. If their plan comes from human authority, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them. You might even be fighting against God himself." Acts 5:30:29-39

You're right, which is why it makes no sense to assume that back when these events took place the ones making the claims couldn't produce the evidence. If the Apostles were unable to back their outrageous claims, the movement would have died out:

Riiiight, just like the movements started by L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith, and....

Logged

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Doesn't matter who the authors were. Destroy the claim that the universe is eternal in nature and you've deastroyed the Bible. Go ahead...take your best shot.

Actually, it does since the authors could have been liars, delusional, etc. Since we have no evidence to support their claims, there is little reason to believe them or the bible that was produced.

However....

The same science that you use everyday when it makes you comfortable is the same science that shows that the universe will end in some form. Right now, with the evidence we have, it seems the end shall be expansion and entropy. No more stars, humans, black holes or anything. We see no evidence of any god to keep it "eternal" which I am assuming you mean the same as it is now. We see no evidence of any thing supernatural at all. I'm sure you'll try to claim taht since we don't know the answer yet, your claims of "goddidit" rule but no, they don't. Saying "we don't know everything yet" is perfectly fine and does not require your version of a god or anyone else's.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

No evidence? How about seeing them with our own eyes? I have saw some ghosts over the years, but unfortunately for me, I have no evidence to support that. Maybe I was just hallucinating or something. In the future if I see any ghosts I will make a video of the sightings and put them here as evidence. They will not be edited either.

Logged

"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."-Thomas Szasz

Much of the bible has no historical support and is in fact contradicted by actual archaeological and historical scholarship. Noah's ark, the tower of babel, exodus, and the rest of the more 'pivotal' assertions of biblical myth are completely rejected by historians.

I'm glad you said contradicted instead of proven false and I can understand why people discount miracles.

No evidence? How about seeing them with our own eyes? I have saw some ghosts over the years, but unfortunately for me, I have no evidence to support that. Maybe I was just hallucinating or something. In the future if I see any ghosts I will make a video of the sightings and put them here as evidence. They will not be edited either.

You're expecting spiritual, non-material beings to reflect photons into a camera? How does that work?

Logged

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

The same science that you use everyday when it makes you comfortable is the same science that shows that the universe will end in some form. Right now, with the evidence we have, it seems the end shall be expansion and entropy. No more stars, humans, black holes or anything. We see no evidence of any god to keep it "eternal" which I am assuming you mean the same as it is now.

You've assumed incorrectly. They were speaking of the makeup of the universe. The very nature of it. Do you understand? It can't be taken from existence. It can't be added to. They said it has been that way from the beginning when God created it. They said He put the characteristic of His own nature within it. Forget about the claim that "God did it!" Leave God out of the argument and focus on their assertion that what we see every day possesses the property they claimed it has. Prove that it doesn't and you've proven the Bible false. Go ahead.

Do you have even the faintest idea just how fantastically unreliable eyewitness testimony is? I bet you don't... I certainly didn't, until I started becoming more interested in becoming a scientific skeptic and became more informed about the subject. Here, watch this video. It's a card trick, where the deck of cards changes from one color to another one. Watch closely, and see whether you can catch it. Almost no one does.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Luke 24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. John 20:14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. John 21:4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.

....you have just discounted at least three "witnesses" to the resurrection. And, indeed, cast doubt on every other "witness" thereafter.

Someone appears to the people closest to Christ, who is unrecognisable. He tells them he is Christ....and they believe him. Perhaps all the other witnesses also did not recognise him - because it wasn't him - but went home saying it was because Peter and the others had been assuring them "oh yes, its him all right - no, I didn't recognise him at first eitehr, but he SAYS he's Jesus and that's good enough for me!"

So be very, very careful if you want to discount evidence without witnesses recognising the person involved.....

You can prove the Bible false to yourself by cherry picking any select text of your own choosing out of it. Try reading the whole thing.

Besides that, a lot of the events the Bible describes never even happened.

Name one.

nephilim.the egyptian bondage.the 10 plagues.Exodus.the flood.jericho never had walls. the sun did not stop over head.jerusalem did not have an earth quake and an eclipse on the same day in the first century.

Do you have even the faintest idea just how fantastically unreliable eyewitness testimony is? I bet you don't... I certainly didn't, until I started becoming more interested in becoming a scientific skeptic and became more informed about the subject. Here, watch this video. It's a card trick, where the deck of cards changes from one color to another one. Watch closely, and see whether you can catch it. Almost no one does.

The four colors that changed in that video were obvious, but unexpected, especially because the cards are apparently supposed to change color. Colors of cards changing is quite different from people seeing ghosts.

Logged

"The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget."-Thomas Szasz

The four colors that changed in that video were obvious, but unexpected, especially because the cards are apparently supposed to change color. Colors of cards changing is quite different from people seeing ghosts.

I call shenanigans. I'm guessing you were completely fooled and just don't want to admit it. I have never once met a single person who caught the trick.

If that's not enough for you, let's try another one, shall we? Two teams of basketball players are passing a ball back and forth, one ball for each team. Your task is to count how many passes are made by the team wearing white.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Yes jaybwell, I know exactly what hearsay is, which is why the Apostles statements were being used as evidence against them.

Maybe I missed some of your answers to other members in between my question and your response to me but you pretty much just changed your statement entirely. Please explain or at least show me where the goal post shifted. Also, if you knew what hearsay is, why did you provide hearsay as EVIDENCE for the validity of your claim that Jesus was resurrected?

« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 10:56:55 AM by jaybwell32 »

Logged

I just do what I always do, what I have always done. I am me. Take it or leave it.

The four colors that changed in that video were obvious, but unexpected, especially because the cards are apparently supposed to change color. Colors of cards changing is quite different from people seeing ghosts.

The cards did change color. From blue to red.

Logged

I just do what I always do, what I have always done. I am me. Take it or leave it.

If you want to use "the evidence is all around you" to prove YOUR particular god, then you need to show that that "evidence" of the world ONLY matches the way your religion says the world should be, and that of no other god that may be claimed to exist. Otherwise, saying "look at the world" is just as good evidence for the Great Green Arkleseizure.So what is there specifically about the world that could ONLY have come into being if your chosen god existed?

I gave it to you Anfauglir, but maybe you didn't read it, so here it is again:

"There are things about him that people cannot see....his eternal power and all the things that make Him God. But since the beginning of the world those things have been easy to understand by what God has made. So people are without excuse" Romans 1:20

I know that everything God does will continue forever. People cannot add anything to what God has done, and they cannot take anything away from it." Ecclesiastes 3:14

Of course you can always attribute the (now scientifically confirmed) make up of the universe to chance, but what you'll never be able to do is claim that the writers of the books I cited were incorrect about the property of the world around us.

It does seem somewhat bizarre that - when armed with so much evidence of his (and only his) god that he could use to slap us down, that he prefers to argue over what a historical source is. Surely if there is evidence - here, today - that proves HIS (and only his) god, he would be sharing it?

History isn't nearly as important as the inescapable evidence that surrounds us every second of every day, but it is important.

You've given a refutation to your own argument in your own statement....brilliant ...Don't worry though--it happens sometimes to those who are sinking into the abyss of woo-woo.

Look, I'm no scientist, but if the universe exists by chance, as you put it, then it logically follows that the properties of the world that you exist in, which is a direct result of and part of the universe itself, are here as a result of that same random chance event. To suggest that all of the properties and phenomena that we see and know of, is evidence for anything but a physical, material, and naturally occurring universe, is a poor suggestion and without question pure speculation.

The physical/material universe is all that there is, and therefore it would be using faulty logic to assume that something unnatural, immaterial, or nonphysical, as a process or property or phenomena, could exist in our world or in our universe, and especially outside of our universe. As well, it would be especially faulty to think that any nonphysical process or cause would have the ability or power to create a physical universe and inject its own or a special nature into it.

To assert that the natural material universe is a manifestation of the essential qualities or characteristics of an unproved, unnatural, immaterial, and nonexistent in our reality phenomena or entity---is an absurd assertion and contradiction. As well, any text from ancient books that were written in times of significant ignorance and that display faulty reasoning and assumptions based on that lack of knowledge and understanding, is meaningless with regards to proving that this claim is true.

OK, so if we're going to forget the claim that "god did it", then it is also absurd to assert that the universe has its own inherent nature or character to it and that it is being driven with some type of inner directivity or meaningful purpose. The random phenomena of black holes, asteroids, tsunamis, and babies who die from brain cancer--ends that argument quite nicely.

The only inescapable evidence that surrounds us every second of every day, is the fact that us credulous fearful and at times imbecilic primates, exist in and are a result of a physical universe and its unguided and uncaring processes.

« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 11:12:30 AM by gonegolfing »

Logged

"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Paul lists his own experience of "seeing" Jesus, and he uses the same word for "see" as he does with the others he speaks of. Paul's experience was a mystical vision of light shining down from the sky. The vision-entity had to tell Paul that it was Jesus. Paul did not recognize him as such on sight, and he certainly had no way to verify that what he was seeing was Jesus and not Satan leading him away from the truth of Judaism, or some 12-year-old space alien playing a prank, or a hallucination in his own head.

Everything you've said here is true, but since before his encounter with what he believed was the risen Christ, Paul was an orthodox Jew who chose to involve himself in the murder of members of this new sect and then do a 180, we can assume that whatever he experienced was valid. You're an atheist, right? If what happened to Paul happened to you, would you believe in Jesus?

The extreme paucity of detail (no time(s) and place(s) where the encounter or encounters took place, no description of the event itself or any words Jesus spoke at the time, and not the slightest indication of "where are they now?") casts doubt on the validity of the claim. At the very least, these alleged 500 people would have claim to some sort of special status in the Christian community, relative to people who did not see Jesus. The fact that the Five Hundred are not mentioned in other Christian epistles and correspondence, nor does anyone make reference to any grand, timeless words Jesus uttered to them, provides a pretty good argument that this was a non-event.

Or maybe the answer is as simple as not having time to record every single person Jesus spoke to, as everything in the ancient world was done by pen. Fact is, the claim back then was made and could have been easily disproved. You and I wouldn't make such a claim if we couldn't back it up.

In the hands of a believer, this claim also puts the lie to the notion that Jesus has to hide and be coy. If he can "appear" in some way to 500 people, what's to stop him from showing up at Billy Graham crusades to receive the altar call? Why can't he visit the churches who worship him in spirit and in truth? And not in some invisible, indistinguishable-from-his-not-being-there way, either. That would certainly solve the problem of "false" Christians or churches, which has been a huge problem for Christianity throughout its history. If "free will" or some other excuse prevents him from being as detectable as any other real entity, why didn't that stop him from making this alleged appearance to the Five Hundred?

Because His purpose, as stated by the prophets which preceded Him and by the disciples who watched the prophecies unfold, was to die for sin, which causes death....die for the wrongdoing of others....and then, because His own life was truly taken unjustly, destroy death forever by rising from it. Please understand, I'm not asking you if you agree with this. I'm only asking if you understand why the Bible says Jesus came here.

"The teaching about the cross is foolishness to those who are being lost, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 It is written in the Scriptures: "I will cause the wise to lose their wisdom; I will make the wise unable to understand." — Isaiah 29:14 Where is the wise person? Where is the educated person? Where is the skilled talker of this world? God has made the wisdom of the world foolish. In the wisdom of God the world did not know God through its own wisdom. So God chose to use the message that sounds foolish to save those who believe. 1 Corinthians 1:18- 21

It's quite amazing that this prophecy is being fulfilled right here, right now, between you and me.

How exciting! The Bible describes a man-made "event", something fairly run-of-the-mill.....and so therefore all the magic parts must also be true!!!

I never said this proves miracles. I've been told by people here that the Bible is an unreliable source of history and have been giving examples to show the opposite. I think some of the problems between us stem from an unwillingness on the part of atheists to admit they're wrong when they have been clearly shown they are. After being challenged in the "Question" thread, I showed how the Bible matched almost perfectly with what is recorded in secular history. Don't believe me, read it for yourself.

Whatcha, consider for a moment the "Sharpe" novels by Bernard Cornwell. Chock full of careful research, they feature places we know exist; characters (Wellington, Napoleon, etc) that we have multiple contemporary accounts of; and descriptions of events and battles that are likewise supported by umpteen sources of evidence - documents, archeological evidence....even the buildings of the battles still stand.

And into that mix we insert Richard Sharpe, Patrick Harper, et al. Characters who do things that are out of the ordinary, exhibit extraordinary luck.....but do nothing that could not conceivably have happened.

Under your logic, because we can verify 90% of what happens in the "Sharpe" novels, therefore Richard Sharpe existed and his life unfolded exactly as the books describe.

If we didn't have the knowledge that Bernard Cornwell writes fiction.....can you explain to me how we could tell from the books alone whether Richard Sharpe really existed or not?

Excellent question. The answer is, we couldn't, but this doesn't disprove any real persons existence either. If the USA vanished 2000 years from now, anyone looking back will have their hands full in determining truth from error from what has been written simply because of the contradictions arising from politics, civil rights, sexism, etc. I saw a thing on Free Speech TV a few weeks ago where (from documents written during his time) Christopher Columbus was painted as a child for sex slave trader. Don't forget the parade.

The four colors that changed in that video were obvious, but unexpected, especially because the cards are apparently supposed to change color. Colors of cards changing is quite different from people seeing ghosts.

I call shenanigans. I'm guessing you were completely fooled and just don't want to admit it. I have never once met a single person who caught the trick.

If that's not enough for you, let's try another one, shall we? Two teams of basketball players are passing a ball back and forth, one ball for each team. Your task is to count how many passes are made by the team wearing white.

....

Didn't watch the card trick video as I'm at work and it's really boring without audio so I didn't pay much attention.

The ball video though... I got the correct number of passes, and I also noticed the Gorilla. How could you not? It's a dude in a big black furry gorilla costume walking through the middle of the screen! Not to mention you're sitting there watching 6 shapes move around and then suddenly there's another one.

As I first noticed the Gorilla out of the corner of my eye I thought to myself "Wow, what a lame attempt to distract me. " And as I continued counting, I wondered to myself if maybe high-school aged kids would be distracted by it, with the short attention span and whatnot... And I imagined a kid watching it going "Woh a Gorilla LULZ!" and becoming totally disorientated, and then I found myself feeling embarassed for that imaginary kid and his ADD.

I also expected the actual passing to be more 3-card-monty-ish, like where they'd try to throw me off. If they had, I dunno, I probably would have had less time for day dreaming at least.

I'm going with this one. You see, the whole purpose of that experiment is to illustrate how our attention can be so focused on one thing while something completely obvious can go unnoticed. The usual response is "What gorilla?"

Logged

I just do what I always do, what I have always done. I am me. Take it or leave it.

Most people don't. I use that video for training from time to time and out of a room of 15-20 people, usually only 1 or 2 get it, if at all. To quote PZ Myers:

Quote

We have clumsy, sputtering, inefficient brains that are better designed for spotting rutabagas and triggering rutting behavior at the sight of a curvy buttock than they are for doing math or interpreting the abstract nature of the universe.

Didn't watch the card trick video as I'm at work and it's really boring without audio so I didn't pay much attention.

You should watch it sometime. It's quite revealing.

Quote

The ball video though... I got the correct number of passes, and I also noticed the Gorilla. How could you not?

Most people don't, and that's the point of the video: stuff that common sense tells you should be screamingly obvious very often isn't. How could you possibly not see a gorilla walking thru the team of basketball players, right? And yet, most people miss it.

In this particular vision, the gorilla is somewhat more obvious. There are other versions of the same experiment on YouTube where the gorilla is much harder to spot.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Didn't watch the card trick video as I'm at work and it's really boring without audio so I didn't pay much attention.

You should watch it sometime. It's quite revealing.

Sure man. I'll check it out when I get home.

So most people don't notice the Gorilla, really? That strikes me as... odd. Some kind of psychological blind spot or something? Maybe some people require more "processing power" to keep track of the ball, and so they don't have enough memory for other applications... Like, err, Gorilla-spotting?